Current Bugs - Version 8.1.0

[airboy]

I've seen three bugs in Red Star. First was Rostov scenario victory condition failure due to AI controlled Russian troops officially holding victory hexes. This was discussed on a separate thread and a hotfix was provided. This should be included in the first patch.

The second error has no gameplay effect, is funny, and quickly vanishes. Giant Finns or Germans will appear on the first couple of turns before the models revert back to normal. Only seen it for one unit on the board during the AIs move - and then it reverts to normal. I've attached two screenshots. I've seen it happen several times.

[bebro]

I can reproduce the problem by starting up the first scenario of the Sandstorm campaign, buying two SM.79 bombers to bring down the Italian RP to 160, and then upgrading the Italian 75/18 gun to a 149/19 gun with mandatory Breda 61 truck (the cost for the truck is displayed in red because I can afford the 144 RP for the gun, but not the extra 32 RP for the truck). If I press the Upgrade button then both gun and truck are upgraded with no cost incurred (RP stay at 160).

Thx, I was able to reprodiuce it in Red Star too, so it's a general problem. I add this to bugtracker so that it does not get lost, it should be resolved obviously.

[GabeKnight]

There's a broken antiSubEffect animation "hedgehog" assigned to some US warships. It should be "depthcharge" instead or removed entirely (for all ships in the BB class for example as they can not attack subs anyway).

dd_sumner
dd_gearing
ca_wichita
ca_wichita_42
ca_wichita_43
ca_wichita_44
ca_baltimore
ca_baltimore_44
ca_baltimore_45
bb_iowa
bb_iowa_44
bb_iowa_45
bb_iowa_P
bb_montana
bb_montana_P

[GabeKnight]

The Ger. Ar_234 model is missing the "w0" weapon object, messing up the air defense animation into an "infinite-hit-loop".

Screenshot 25.jpg (330.63 KiB) Viewed 2458 times

[Thales99]

If I didn't overlook something, I can add a minor issue in the Arctic Convoy scenario of the Kriegsmarine campaign:

One of the primary objectives is to sink 8 convoy ships; however, sinking only 4 supply ships is sufficient to reach this objective, as each destroyed supply ship seems to count twice towards this goal. The other primary objective (sink 12 destroyers) is working as expected.

[GabeKnight]

One of the primary objectives is to sink 8 convoy ships; however, sinking only 4 supply ships is sufficient to reach this objective, as each destroyed supply ship seems to count twice towards this goal.

Yeah, I remember the objective. It's always been like this. Funny thing is: I've never questioned it. I wonder why?

[terminator]

One of the primary objectives is to sink 8 convoy ships; however, sinking only 4 supply ships is sufficient to reach this objective, as each destroyed supply ship seems to count twice towards this goal.

Yeah, I remember the objective. It's always been like this. Funny thing is: I've never questioned it. I wonder why?

Tested with the Editor :

Capture d’écran (303).jpg (644.83 KiB) Viewed 2422 times

Unit Type -> Supply Ship = Class -> Transport (Naval) ==> 2x

Capture d’écran (302).jpg (261.87 KiB) Viewed 2422 times

[GabeKnight]

Thanks, terminator.

That means, that if you would include the category "naval" into the conditions, the counter goes up three per unit. This can't be right or WAD, can it? I guess the real bug's inside the "kill & casualties" trigger which should not count the same unit twice.

[bru888]

[Gabe, I was just testing and typing that very thing.]

I swear to goodness (I use stronger language at times but not here because I am a moderator ) but I have been here going on four years now and I am STILL frequently learning new things about this game.

I must be a slow learner.

What the heck? You mean to say that a unit that could be qualified under two Unit Definitions will count twice?!? When I have thought of this situation, I believed it to mean "one and done"; that is, a unit qualifying under any description would be counted once only.

Sure enough, though. I made it count three times by adding the Naval category:

Screenshot 16.jpg (230.97 KiB) Viewed 2403 times

Screenshot 17.jpg (240.6 KiB) Viewed 2403 times

Screenshot 19.jpg (255.01 KiB) Viewed 2403 times

This means that a scenario designer cannot be lazy and use the second Unit Definition as some sort of "catch-all" setting. He must specify exactly what needs to be defined, encompassing all without any overlap.

I will submit this in the bugs forum.

[terminator]

Thanks, terminator.

That means, that if you would include the category "naval" into the conditions, the counter goes up three per unit. This can't be right or WAD, can it? I guess the real bug's inside the "kill & casualties" trigger which should not count the same unit twice.

Each line is a condition the game will test

Capture d’écran (383).jpg (245 KiB) Viewed 2402 times

Capture d’écran (384).jpg (323.84 KiB) Viewed 2402 times

[bru888]

Heh, three great minds thinking alike!

[terminator]

Another example :

Capture d’écran (385).jpg (244.79 KiB) Viewed 2397 times

Capture d’écran (387).jpg (416.35 KiB) Viewed 2397 times

[bru888]

Well, what is the consensus? Has anybody seen this before or is it new? Gabe, I quoted you in the bugs thread as thinking that it's not WAD and the condition should not count the same unit more than once, no matter how many overlapping Unit Definitions are involved.

[GabeKnight]

Each line is a condition the game will test

Yep, sounds about right. Computer thinking.

Well, what is the consensus? Has anybody seen this before or is it new? Gabe, I quoted you in the bugs thread as thinking that it's not WAD and the condition should not count the same unit more than once, no matter how many overlapping Unit Definitions are involved.

No, I guess it's not WAD. They simply forgot to include some kind of check for that: One combat event, one unit killed and one unit counted.

And it can't be really new as the objective in Arctic Convoy always counted the transports twice as long as I can remember. But it's interesting that this error did not cause more problems in the available DLCs so far (?)

[bru888]

But it's interesting that this error did not cause more problems in the available DLCs so far (?)

"Aye, there's the rub," to quote the Bard. I'm also thinking of all the custom content that I have seen and worked on. I have the same sinking feeling that I experienced when I discovered "Scenario turn limit" is quite literal.

[terminator]

For the Artic Convoy Bug, what is the solution to the problem (I don’t know this scenario)

There is a Unit Definition of too much, which one ? Unit Type = Supply Ship or Class = Transport (Naval) ?

[GabeKnight]

For the Artic Convoy Bug, what is the solution to the problem
There is a Unit Definition of too much, which one ? Unit Type = Supply Ship or Class = Transport (Naval) ?

All of the vessels are supply ships. That one should be enough.

[terminator]

Initially in the Beta, the objective was to Sink 15 Convoy Ships. Currently, only 4 Convoy Ships are sufficient since each Convoy Ship counts double and the objective is 8. That’s all I’ve found.

ArticConvoy.jpg (110.24 KiB) Viewed 2348 times

[Horst]

Yep, each unit definition is counted, so it is rather a user mistake if you define types and classes that can be shared by one unit.
I hadn’t really paid attention to that either in the past, as so many other counters has worked fine so far. KM is truly the least played campaign for people to notice this flaw.
Anyway, always good to know the potential trigger-traps!

[bru888]

Yep, each unit definition is counted, so it is rather a user mistake if you define types and classes that can be shared by one unit.
I hadn’t really paid attention to that either in the past, as so many other counters has worked fine so far. KM is truly the least played campaign for people to notice this flaw.
Anyway, always good to know the potential trigger-traps!

I would look carefully in the next changelist for a reference to the "Kills & Casualties" condition. Or, for a reference to a change in the Arctic Convoy scenario. One way or the other, that would tell us whether this was a condition bug that had to be fixed or it's WAD and the scenario needed to be adjusted. That's the only way we are going to know if and how this gets resolved. If you don't see either listed, however, then it remains one more thing to be kept in mind. As I become more experienced with these editors, I am impressed with how literal they are when it comes to this type of thing.